Tag Archives: I-140

Employee Portability

Posted on by

Section 204(j) Portability

Section 204(j) provides that an approved Form I-140 petition for certain classifications remains valid for adjustment of status when an applicant switches jobs or employers if:

  • The adjustment of status application has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more, based on an employment-based immigrant visa petition AND
  • The new job is in the “same or a similar occupational classification” as the job for which the petition was filed.

 

A new policy memorandum has been issued to assist immigration officers in determining what qualifies as a same or a similar occupational classification and which evidence should be used in making that determination. They are instructed to examine the job duties of the former and new job and skills, experience, education, training, licenses, and certifications required. Wages can also be important. The policy memorandum also repeats that a preponderance of the evidence standard is to be utilized.

Immigration officers are supposed to treat evidence favorably if the applicant establishes that the previous and new job are within the same broad occupation code in determining whether the two positions are similar. The memo gives the example of Computer Programmers, Software Developers Applications, Software Developers Systems Software, and Web Developers being found within the same broad occupational group of Software Developers and Programmers. It also gives warning: just establishing that the two jobs are described within the same broad occupation may not be enough for the two jobs to be in similar classifications for a preponderance of the evidence.

Of note, the memo dedicates analysis to career progression. It continues the analysis under the totality of the circumstances and preponderance of the evidence guidance. The analysis may be more straightforward when the promotion is to a more senior position that does not involve managerial or supervisory duties. The analysis becomes complicated when that transition is to a position that involves a managerial or supervisory role.

For that second scenario, the memo instructs that if the applicant establishes in the new job that she will be “primarily responsible for managing the same or similar functions of their original jobs or the work of individuals whose jobs are in the same or similar occupational classification(s) as the applicants’ original positions, the immigration officer can treat that evidence in the applicant’s favor for determining similar occupational classifications. The example used is a cook advancing to a food service manager. A food service manager supervises restaurant cooks and other individuals in similar positions.

There may also be situations where a normal career progression does not involve managing persons in jobs that in the same or similar occupational classification as the applicant’s original position. The example used is a cook that becomes a food service manager, while retaining many of the original job duties. That position may be devoid of supervisory duties, but the applicant would be able to demonstrate similar occupational classifications based on functions.

The memorandum is lengthy and detailed, delving into many scenarios that immigration officers encounter as they adjudicated portability petitions. Portability is an important provision of the AC21 law enacted in 2000. The express purpose of that law was to increase job flexibility for foreign workers who are stuck in delays and backlogs in the employment-based immigrant visa process.

USCIS Must Notify Employee and Employer

Posted on by

Court Rules USCIS Must Notify Employee and New Employer in Revoked Visa Case

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a decision that has meaningful impact for thousands of nonimmigrant employees in the United States. The appellate court ruled that US Citizenship and Immigration Services has to provide notice of its intent to revoke an immigrant visa petition to the employee who will be affected by the potential revocation. For someone who is the beneficiary of an employment-based visa petition, this means that individuals must be provided notice. The ruling declared that USCIS must give notice to all actually affected, which can mean the employee who ported to a new job or the new employer.

The basis for the lawsuit was an employee had submitted an application for a Green Card based on an approved visa petition. Although employment-based visas are dependent on employers, employees are allowed to switch jobs. This can wrangle employers, who have made the investment in the employment-based visa for their employees. The employee changed jobs, USCIS decided to revoke the approved visa petition and it sent notice only to the first employer (who had filed for the visa.). The employee and her new employer did not learn about the revocation until it was too late. USCIS denied the Green Card application the employee filed because of the revoked visa petition. The Service also denied the employee’s attempts to reopen the visa revocation.

There is a jurisdictional issue at play. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals sits in New York and covers New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. Its decision is not binding nationwide. The American Immigration Council and American Immigration Lawyers Association are advocating for USCIS to adopt the Second Circuit’s logic and decision.

H-4 Work Authorization

Posted on by

USCIS announced a new rule today, February 24, 2015, allowing H-4 visa holders in certain situations to obtain work authorization. Work authorization would not change their H-4 dependent status on an H-1B principal. Successful applicants can apply for an employment authorization card on May 26, 2015. Please note that employment authorization applications can often take three months.

 

Work authorization is permitted for H-4 visa holders who have an H-1B principal with a pending I-140 (employment-based application) or with an approved I-140 under AC21. AC21 104(c) and 106(a) allow for H-1B visa holders to extend their status with a pending or approved I-140 application for permanent residence. Individuals from countries such as India, China, and the Philippines have excruciatingly long waits for their priority date, even when they are approved for their Green Cards through EB-2 or EB-3 categories. During those waits, H-4 visa holders will be able to work.

 

This will bring much relief to H-4 visa holders and should help local economies benefit from talented individuals who can now contribute. This proposal was announced with the series of Executive Actions from November 20, 2015 that primarily focused on deferred action for parents of Americans and expanded DACA. However, there are also executive orders that have more support, such as allowing certain H-4 visa holders to obtain work authorization and employment.

 

November 2014 was not the first mention of permitting H-4 work authorization. Over the summer of 2014, a Notice and Comment period generated enormous support for the proposal, with H-4 and H-1B visa holders voicing their espousal of such a rule. Opposition was minor and consisted of fear that H-4 visa holders would be discriminated against and forced into menial labor positions.

 

The Law Offices of Andrew Wood applauds USCIS for announcing this rule and looks forward to assisting H-4 visa holders obtain employment authorization. If you would like to learn more about how we can assist you, please drop us a line.